53 Colorado Sheriffs Sue State Over Gun Control Laws

In a deliberate move to catch gun control activists off guard, an organization representing Colorado sheriffs in a lawsuit over a series of recently passed gun control laws abruptly announced the filing of the suit in federal court today.

“We did that deliberately,” David Kopel, an attorney with the Independence Institute, which is handling the case, said. “We wanted to catch our opponents who support gun control off guard.”

As recently as Wednesday, the Independence Institute was suggesting the filing was still a few weeks off. Appearing at a rally against another bill, Amy Oliver Cooke, wife of Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, said they were planning to file the suit in the next couple of weeks.
The suit, which was filed in federal district court, lists 54 out of the state’s 64 sheriffs as plaintiffs in the case.

Kopel says what is significant to note is that while not all sheriffs are party to the suit, not a single sheriff has come out in opposition to it.

Cooke had harsh words for critics in the media and others who questioned whether a government official should sue another government official.

“Some in the media … asked me if I think it’s a good idea or if it’s appropriate for [a] government official to sue another government official. My response is unequivocally yes. It is our duty and responsibility as sheriffs to protect the people who elected us and whom we serve.”

At a recent event in Fort Collins by the Independence Institute providing updates on the case, Cooke said he was proud that gun control supporters are nervous over the lawsuit.
“When we announced our opposition to these gun control laws, the Greeley Tribune ran a story titled, ’48 Sheriffs going Rogue on Guns,’” Cooke said. “They should be fearing us. What right does the state have dictating how many rounds of ammunition [a woman] can have to defend herself?”

The lawsuit isn’t just limited to law enforcement officials, but lists a variety of organizations including the Colorado Farm Bureau, which has expressed concerns about rural farmers and ranchers having to deal with predators, Women for Concealed Carry, and the Colorado Outfitters Association.

“We have a diverse number of plaintiffs in this case. We are celebrating diversity,” Kopel said. “The difference is we actually believe in genuine diversity.”
Cooke noted that the lawsuit was not a partisan issue, with Republican and Democratic sheriffs both taking part in the lawsuit.

“This is not about urban versus rural as the governor likes to portray it,” Cooke said. “We have rural and urban plaintiffs in this case. It is about the Constitution. It is about the 2nd and 14th amendments. The suit is about our way of life, our freedoms, our rights, our liberties which transcend political affiliation and place of residence.”

Within minutes following the announcement of the filing of the suit, Republican Atty. Gen. John Suthers, who will be defending the state in the lawsuit, finally issued a statement providing guidance to law enforcement on how they are supposed to enforce the new laws.

Under the existing laws, any magazine that holds greater than 15 rounds, or can be modified to hold greater than 15 rounds, is now illegal to purchase in the state. The problem is nearly all magazines are designed with features that make them readily expandable to hold more than 15 rounds. The law’s wording effectively bans all magazines in Colorado.

Suthers said in the guidelines that magazines “must be judged objectively” and that a magazine holding 15 rounds or fewer cannot be defined as “large capacity” just because it can be modified to hold more.

While those currently possessing magazines greater than 15 rounds, the law prevents the transfer of any of these magazines. The wording states the grandfather clause only applies as long as the holder “maintains continuous possession” of it. Cooke and other sheriffs have pointed out that based on this wording, anyone who gives their magazine to a gunsmith or asks for help on a shooting range with a jammed magazine is now violating the law.

Suthers said “an owner should not be considered to have transferred a large capacity magazine or lost continuous possession of it simply by handing it to a gunsmith, hunting partner, or an acquaintance at a shooting range.”

However, the problem is Suther’s statement is just what it says, guidance, and it does not hold the force of law. Any officer can choose to disregard Suther’s recommendations anytime he chooses in favor of the plain text of the law.

The lawsuit also claims the gun control measures violate the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as individual civil rights.

Dylan Harrell, one of the disabled plaintiffs in the case, said his disability, which confines him to a wheelchair often makes it more difficult for him to defend himself or his family. He also noted that as an outdoorsman, when exiting his vehicle he needs help.

“I often request the assistance for the safe handling of my firearms anytime I am transferring from a wheelchair to an ATV or another vehicle,” Harrell explained. “It is now against the law for me to even seek assistance anytime I am transferring my firearms for my wheelchair to another vehicle. I am filing this lawsuit on the half of all Coloradans with disabilities such as my own.”
The suit noted that disabled citizens often find it difficult to change magazines quickly, which could be a serious threat to their life if their weapon is needed for self-defense.

Colorado’s far left government this year is controlled by Democrats in the governor’s office, in the House and the Senate. They rammed through a number of gun restrictions and limits – at the behest of the White House.

During debate over the gun control measures, the vast majority of citizens testifying before the legislature were opposed to any new gun control laws. However, frequently their testimony was dismissed and treated with disdain by Democratic lawmakers who seemed to have already made up their minds about passing the laws.

State Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, scolded a witness opposing one of the gun restrictions.

Amanda Collins, 27, of Reno, Nev., was telling her story of being assaulted and explained that had she been carrying a concealed weapon, the incident might have ended differently.
“I just want to say that, actually statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun,” Hudak scolded. “And, chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”

Hudak continued, speaking over the committee witness, “The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that every one woman who used a handgun in self-defense, 83 here are killed by them.”
Finally able to resume her testimony, Collins said, “Senator, you weren’t there. I know without a doubt [the outcome would have been different with a gun].
“He already had a weapon,” she told the meeting of the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. “He didn’t need mine.”

A similar attitude was displayed by state Rep. Joe Salazar.
He said that a woman who feels threatened by rape on a college campus doesn’t need to be armed because she can use a call box to get help.

Salazar’s statement came in a debate over a proposal to ban citizens possessing a concealed-carry permit from being armed on university campuses.

“It’s why we have call boxes,” said Salazar, “It’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at.

“And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.”

Perhaps the most surprising statement came from U.S. Rep. Diane DeGette, a Denver Democrat who displayed her perspective on gun magazines.

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them; so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot, and there won’t be any more available,” she said.

The Denver Post said DeGette didn’t appear to understand that a firearm magazine can be reloaded with more bullets.

State officials admitted they were doing the bidding of the White House. In February, Vice President Joe Biden flew to the state to strong-arm Democratic lawmakers who were feeling pressure from their constituents to vote against the bills.

“He (Biden) said it would send a strong message to the rest of the country that a Western state had passed gun-control bills,” Tony Exhum, a Democratic lawmaker from Colorado Springs, told the Denver Post.

House Majority Leader Mark Ferrandino, an open homosexual who also pursued a “civil unions” agenda this year, admitted the gun-control bills introduced by fellow Democrats had national implications.

“I was shocked that he called. He said he thought the bills could help them on a national level,” Ferrandino said.

US Justice Dept Claims No Homeschooling Rights

Individual liberty is being burned at the stake, as governments set fire to people natural rights. This time it has everything to do with homeschooling.

It all started in Germany. Uwe and Hannelore Romeike were raising their five children in the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg, when they decided to remove their children from the public education system. In 2006, the Romeike's illegally withdrew their children from the German public schools system and began homeschooling. Believing that the public education system was undermining their Christian faith, the Romeike's began breaking the law and teaching their kids at home. By exercising their natural rights, the Romeikes were fined over $10,000 by the German government and at one point their children were forcefully removed from their home. In 2010, after getting their children back, they chose to flee Germany and move to the United States.

Finding freedom in the US, only to be challenged again, this time by the US

Upon arrival in Tennessee, the Romeikes were granted asylum. A federal judge rebuked the German policy and ruled that the Romeike's had a reasonable fear of persecution for their personal beliefs if they returned to Germany.

Nothing much was said about the issue until the Obama's Administration's Department of Justice got involved.

Attorney General, Eric Holder came out and opposed the federal court ruling, siding with the German government. He pleaded that the Romeike's be denied their asylum. Holder believes that governments may legitimately use force and authority to make parents comply with government-sanctioned schools.

With statements like these, the United States, once a beacon for liberty, is now endorsing force and mandates in regard to education. The right to homeschool and teach one's own children is a fundamental human right is now at stake. It doesn't matter what beliefs each family has. It's liberty that matters. According to Holder, that liberty should be supervised by the federal government.

Government supervised education

The German policy that's currently in place says that the upbringing of a child is a parent's natural right but the government's duty is to watch over them in the performance of this duty. The law also states that: "The entire school system shall be under the supervision of the state."

The policy in the United States is currently one of freedom. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution secures homeschooling as a fundamental liberty. The Constitution enables each individual state to regulate homeschooling in its own way. Is this idea under attack?

Very much so. The Attorney General currently seeks to deport the Romeike's. Their right to home school their children their own way doesn't matter to the Department of Justice. The government is more concerned with compliance: Everyone giving away their liberty and free will, and absorbing the education laid out by federal law.

From the failed No Child Left Behind Act to the new federally implemented Common Core program, the government is socializing the public school system. The new Common Core program is based on a one-size-fits-all approach that school Board President Michael Faccinetto condemns, saying:

"All we care about are these high-stakes tests and numbers and data instead of the kids." Faccinetto continues, "Standardized tests don't define the success of a child."

Homeschooling typically allows for a broader, more creative, and more self-disciplined approach to learning

Will federal compliance be the way forward for education in the United States, or are people catching on and learning that the freedom of homeschooling allows for the exploration of alternative ideas, engaging children more effectively with their society and themselves?

Indeed, homeschooling in the US is on the rise. Since 1999, the number of homeschooled children has increased by 75 percent.

Typically, a parent-involved education lays the groundwork for a set of core values that helps children become more productive and principled later in life.

More times than not, homeschooling is not a close-minded, antisocial way of educating. It's actually a more integrative, creative approach, with opportunities outside the classroom.

Homeschooling isn't anything to be ashamed of, and there should be nothing criminal about it. It is a parent's natural right to teach their children what they want as long as they are not harming another. A family that flees a county's educational control to find liberty in the United States is a testimony of freedom and the Attorney General should be ashamed for wanting to strip the family of asylum and deport them back into the hands of the controlling German government.

Sequester Cuts From Poor Gives To War Efforts

What Is Government?

Agenda 21 Mind Control and Smart Growth

Do you cherish your God-given constitutional right to own property? So do I! UN Agenda 21′s Smart Growth is in full bloom across our nation. In East Tennessee the five county local “Regional ” program is called Plan East Tennessee, (Regional Plan for Livable Communities), a plan which will eliminate private property rights in these five counties. Link<br><br>

  It is a plan for Smart Growth. Rosa Koire, author of, “Behind the Green Mask,” defines Smart Growth on her website, as “Human habitation as it is referred to now is restricted to lands within the Urban Growth Boundaries of the city. Only certain building designs are permitted. Rural property is more and more restricted on what uses can be on it.”<br><br>


In my recent article, Taxed Enough Already, I explained how our former Knoxville City Mayor, Bill Haslam (now Tennessee’s Governor) hired his Democratic opponent, Madeline Rogero to work in his Republican Mayoral administration since the election was very close. He wanted a second term without her running against him. Rogero is now the new Knoxville City Mayor. While she was in Haslam’s administration, she apparently received permission and applied for a federal grant from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities. In fact, Governor Haslam has refused to even sign a resolution against Agenda 21 even though a Resolution has absolutely no power of law. <br><br>


These grants, part of the Obama administration’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities, bring together HUD, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Two types of grants were awarded — those to update existing plans, and those to develop sustainability plans from scratch. Knoxville’s Plan ET is from scratch and Knoxville received $4.32 million from the HUD grant. Another $2.5 million came from a Consortium of partners which includes non-profits.
 <br><br>

Knoxville is also a dues paying member of ICLEI since 2007. From Tom DeWeese’s article, Agenda 21 in One Easy Lesson, ” ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Additional groups include American Planning Association, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. The Foundation and government grants drive the process.” <br><br>


Community Forums and The Delphi Technique

From the Plan ET website, “Over the three-year PlanET process, three phases will lead to a targeted, meaningful outcome. Phase One (August 2011 – July 2012) will bring East Tennesseans together to establish a shared identity and vision (alleged data gathering). Phase Two (April 2012 – March 2013) will take that vision, and while educating and engaging the public, will develop a shared direction.(framework) Phase Three (January 2013 – December 2013) will produce and report the final product and focus on implementation activities.” (Action plan for Smart Growth) <br><br>


Series II of Plan ET held a week of six forums in every one of the five “regional” counties (Blount, Knox, (2) Anderson, Loudon and Union) asking for “community input.” Yet, Plan ET’s definition of “community input” seems to be neutralization of any expressed opposition to their plans of eliminating private property ownership under the guise of Smart Growth. Their “community consensus” is scripted for their pre-determined outcome via their use of the evil Rand Corporation’s mind-control Delphi Technique. RAND developed the Delphi method in the 1950s for the U.S. Department of Defense. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war. <br><br>



These forums are headed by trained Delphi Technique facilitators at small table groups of 6 to 8 people. The facilitators or change agents are always likeable people who will smile and agree with your comments. The discussion consists of issues previously decided upon by the leadership of these forums. The facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints. <br><br>

Rarely does anyone ever challenge the process, thinking they were probably in the minority with their answers. Actually, the conclusions were established in the back room long before the meeting ever took place. The general public believes this program was theirs, but in fact, the outcomes had all been decided long before the meetings ever took place. The Delphi Technique is being used again and again to change our representative republic, given to us by our Founding Fathers, into a “participatory democracy.” <br><br>



Who Are The Facilitators?

Wallace, Roberts, and Todd (WRT) architectural firm, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the Plan ET partner chosen to head the forums. They are paid $1.7 million to accomplish the pre-determined outcome of these forums through facilitation of the Delphi Technique. WRT was established in 1963 by David Wallace and they are expert “regional planners” with the firm’s origins rooted in “sustainability.” The American Planning Association (APA) has continually recognized this firm and their principal leaders for their contributions to sustainability and Smart Growth. The APA even has a “Policy Guide on Smart Growth.” In Tom DeWeese’s article, Lies and Doublespeak of the APA, these APA Sustainablists are teaching their planners to lie through their teeth to the opposition of their UN Agenda 21 Smart Growth policies. <br><br>


The American Planning Association and their allies are countering the anti-Agenda 21 movement with these lies, double speak and stealth. Why? Aren’t they proud of their policies? I guess Seattle planner J. Gary Lawrence said it best when he admitted several years ago that “participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many…who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” Now, even those words have caught up with their secret agenda. So now they’re having to invent more new words. <br><br>



All of the following leaders from WRT are members of the American Planning Association.
The leading facilitator and principal from WRT is John Fernsler. John’s bio states, “John is particularly adept at creating consensus among competing interests and in communicating Smart Growth planning concepts to diverse audiences.” It also states he is adept at helping communities “striving to contain sprawl.” Yes, they don’t want you living in the rural areas, and they hate the suburbs. Plan ET’s website contains pictures of downtown Knoxville, nothing of the rural community, suburbs, or Smoky Mountains.<br><br>

 Fernsler has been the driving force from WRT since the very first Plan ET meeting in Knoxville last summer. I met him there and spent an hour talking with him. He said WRT had just “finished” Austin, Texas. He also said to me, “Maybe you’d understand a bit better if we called what we’re doing, “stewardship.” Now I see on their website they are using God’s Word for “care of the earth” as a euphemistic term for their total control of our lives and property through Smart Growth. <br><br>


Another facilitator and Senior Associate from WRT is Rob Kern. Rob’s area of expertise is Transit design (they want us out of our cars and using public transportation, bicycles, or our feet). He is also adept, as they all are with Smart Growth planners, in urban design. (Once again, forget suburbia and rural communities). <br><br>


Another WRT principal is David Rouse. His bio states, “David has a special interest in planning and design for sustainability, community engagement in the planning process, and capacity-building for implementation.” (Capacity building is the stack-em and pack-em mega multi-family high rises built in the urban landscape after you’ve been moved off your suburban or rural property.) <br><br>


From WRT’s website, “Principal David Rouse is one of 11 members of the American Planning Association’s Sustaining Places Task Force, established earlier this year to address the use of the comprehensive plan as the leading policy document and tool to help communities of all sizes achieve sustainability.<br><br>

 The Task Force is part of the Sustaining Places Initiative, announced in March 2010 by APA President Bruce Knight and Chief Executive Officer Paul Farmer at the United Nation’s Fifth World Urban Forum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Sustaining Places is a multi-year, multi-faceted program to define the role of planning in addressing all human settlement issues relating to sustainability.” <br><br>

David Rouse, UN Smart Growth architect of Wallace, Roberts and Todd stated in the Times Free Press newspaper last fall that he is “committed to an open process, and that property rights won’t be impacted without the public’s consent.” (Note: He said “without the public’s consent, not the property owner’s.) <br><br>

Knoxville’s Metropolitan Planning Commission

Mark Donaldson, the MPC Executive Director has been at every single forum meeting and is trained as a Delphi facilitator. At one of the first meetings in Series I, he did not present himself as Executive Director of MPC, but said he was Mark from Minnesota. Other members of MPC were also at many of the Plan ET meetings as well as countless members of Knoxville’s Energy and Sustainability Task Force. Also present at all the Series II forums was Knoxville’s “Regional” Transportation Planning Coordinator, Jeff Welch who, like Mark Donaldson is trained as a Delphi facilitator. <br><br>

Invitees and Paid Attendees
Here’s the real rub with this whole “community input” nonsense this UN Agenda 21 Smart Growth bunch is pulling. At the majority of meetings, there were18 to 23 Plan ET members present who are Delphi facilitators, along with WRT and MPC staff. Then there were 20 to 25 invitees from local governments including local government Planning Committees, Community Development, Oak Ridge National Labs, University of Tennessee, etc. All of these invitees are employed by government and have a vested interest in this Plan ET coming to full fruition. I have attended nearly all of the Plan ET forums, and at every table, the “shills” who were invited answered all the questions with the pre-determined and ordained outcomes the Smart Growth facilitators desired. <br><br>

 Then there are another 18 to 25 people who know what Agenda 21 really is all about. The majority of meetings have approximately 40 to 45 people, not counting the facilitators, but if those of us against UN Agenda 21 did not attend, the only people giving “community input” would be the invited government shills who have a vested interest in Smart Growth and should not be voting at these Delphi meetings as it is a conflict of interest! At one meeting, one of the invitees admitted she was a paid participant. By the way, these attendance numbers were also given by the Plan ET staff present at all the forums. <br><br>

At the Plan ET South Doyle Middle School forum on Wednesday, April 25th, I sat across the table from a woman named Linda. She works for Knoxville County Mayor Burchett’s administration. Her boss, Grant Rosenberg, Community Development Director, was the invitee, but couldn’t attend, so he sent Linda. I made a comment about UN Agenda 21 at this table and Linda adamantly stated that she loved everything about UN Agenda 21.<br><br>

 What a shocker to hear one of these planted shills actually speak the truth. Most of them tell you they never heard of Smart Growth or UN Agenda 21. I asked her if she agreed with the 85% population reduction of Agenda 21 and she answered that was a total lie. How about limiting our usage of water to 28 gallons a day? She said that was a lie too. She should have gone to see one of my friends across the room who had the UN Agenda 21 book with him and he could have shown her the truth. <br><br>

At the 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Plan ET forum at the Loudon County Technical Center on Thursday, April 26th, the leaders of the forum were in a hurry to usher us out of the building. One of our participants called the Tech Center the next day and asked if there was a time limit on how long we could be there chatting after the meeting. The person she spoke with told her there was no rush to close the building, but the Plan ET people had been there since 8 a.m. They had actually been taking the leading children in this Technical Center School and putting them through the Delphi Technique all day long! <br><br>

 These are minor children. Then she called Public Affairs of Knox County Schools and found out children in other high schools in these counties were being Delphied as well. When she asked if the parents had given permission, she was told the school board had okayed the forums.
Finally, at the last meeting on Saturday morning, April 28th, at Union County High School in Maynardville, Tennessee, (video) there were only six invited local government employees and about 10 or 12 of us. <br><br>

 At one table, one of our people was tossed out of the forum for asking too many questions. Then his daughter was tossed out. When I began to scream that this was a community forum and we were allowed to ask questions, I was threatened with being thrown out. Another woman was asking questions as well, and Jack Rhyne, the City Manager of Maynardville, kept pointing at her and telling her to get out. She kept saying, “No, I want to hear what the gentleman is asking.” Rhyne actually took her elbow in an effort to grab her and escort her out of the building when facilitator Rob Kern of WRT stepped in to move her to another table. As an aside, this woman is a survivor of 9/11 at the Pentagon. <br><br>

Conclusion

At the Board of Mayors meeting, which was the kickoff of Plan ET’s Series II, several of us in the audience stood to ask questions of WRT’s Rob Kern and the Mayor of Anderson County after the initial presentation. There must have been 10 or 15 people asking questions and raising hands and stating they wanted to hear answers. Both the Mayor and Rob Kern said, “We’ll answer questions outside.” We didn’t want the questions outside in the foyer, we wanted them in the main room. Needless to say, these two men ended up running out of the room. At other meetings they would allow questions after the meeting in a corner with no microphone, but then we forced open mic questions and there were plenty. <br><br>

Our property rights and God-given constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are being lost at exponential rates today. The 20 year anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio occurs next month, June 2012. The planners intend to make UN Agenda 21 into hard law. This plan has existed for decades and was written about by six Russians in a book entitled, The Ideal Communist City. It was translated into English in the 60s. It is all about Smart Growth. I would urge you to buy Rosa Koire’s book, Behind the Green Mask. It is available on Amazon.com, and from the Post Sustainability Institute and clearly and succinctly tells the whole story of the damnable UN Agenda 21.

Effects of Digital Milennium Copyright Act on Blogs

 Greetings

The following "take down" notice and action was taken on an article that I republished in its entirety, but someone claimed that I had plagiarized the article.  The article that I posted, with videos, related to Dr Chris Busy and his positions on Radiation and claims that the Military Industrial Complex personnel were libeling him and sites posting information related to that were being given DMCA notices in an effort to silence him.

Definitions have not changed, plagiarism,  would be the case IF I had claimed the published work as my own......which I did not.

The notice below from GOOGLE is standard format and should be chilling.

Truth matters not, the content of the article does.......the watchers are everywhere if they are able to fund staff that searches out names, words or topics that could be offensive to the Dominant Society. 

Imagine, this tiny, unimportant Blog earning a DMCA take down......crazy world....and just who's money is that doing this funding, hmmmmm?

I just checked out Chilling Effects website, quite an interesting world happening out there.

Thanks

Toni

take down notice below
______________


Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that certain content in your blog is alleged to infringe upon the copyrights of others. As a result, we have reset the post(s) to \"draft\" status. (If we did not do so, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The URL(s) of the allegedly infringing post(s) may be found at the end of this message.) This means your post - and any images, links or other content - is not gone. You may edit the post to remove the offending content and republish, at which point the post in question will be visible to your readers again.

A bit of background: the DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement. If you believe you have the rights to post the content at issue here, you can file a counter-claim. In order to file a counter-claim, please see http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr_counternotice&product=blogger.

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling Effects at http://www.chillingeffects.org. We do this in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). You can search for the DMCA notice associated with the removal of your content by going to the Chilling Effects search page at http://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi, and entering in the URL of the blog post that was removed.

If it is brought to our attention that you have republished the post without removing the content/link in question, then we will delete your post and count it as a violation on your account. Repeated violations to our Terms of Service may result in further remedial action taken against your Blogger account including deleting your blog and/or terminating your account. DMCA notices concerning content on your blog may also result in action taken against any associated AdSense accounts. If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain your own legal counsel.

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

Affected URLs:

http://natural-health-home-remedies.blogspot.com/2013/02/christopher-busby-libeled-by-military.html

West Point Trains Military To Take On Americans

Soldiers and police in America take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. But knowing who is a domestic enemy of the Constitution can be confusing to a young grunt. So a West Point think tank decided to broadly define what a domestic enemy may look like to ensure soldiers follow orders when the time comes.

In a study recently published by the West Point Combating Terrorism Center entitled, “Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” Arie Perliger, the author of the study, attempts to present a picture of an America infested with dangerous “Right Wing” domestic terrorists lurking in the shadows and waiting to launch an attack on government establishments, agents, and minorities.

In the study, what Perliger defines as the “Far-Right” is actually a mixture of race hate groups with ordinary militias, anti-abortion activists, Libertarians/Anarchists, and “conspiracy theorists.” Perliger suggets that this “Far-Right” contingent is glued together by an identification with an “anti-federalist” ideology as well as a belief in a “New World Order.” 

According to Perliger, these groups are concerned with the “corrupted and tyrannical nature of the federal government and its apparent tendency to violate individuals’ civilian liberties and constitutional rights.”

Perliger, who is the director of terrorism studies at the West Point Combating Terrorism Center writes in the Introduction to the study that its purpose is to provide “a conceptual foundation for understanding different far-right groups and then presents the empirical analysis of violent incidents to identify those perpetrating attacks and their associated trends.”

For all the repetition of the terms “terrorism” and "violent" however, it is important to mention just how broad a definition has been assigned to this term in recent years. As Madison Ruppert of End the Lie writes in his article, “West Point study identifies ‘violent far-right’ with recognizing tyrannical, corrupt nature of government,” “It is worth noting that the federal government is quite tyrannical and corrupt with a federal judge ruled the government can claim the legal right to assassinate Americans without any charge or trial while never explaining the legal basis, engage in widespread illegal surveillance (which is dramatically increasing) and indefinitely detain Americans.”

Ruppert continues by stating, “If those aren’t violations of individuals’ civil liberties and constitutional rights, I don’t know what is.”

Yet, while Perliger defines three different branches of the “far-right” – racist/white supremacy movement, anti-federalist movement, and fundamentalist movement – the author lumps the three different branches into one, all while conveniently ignoring pertinent facts that might not back up his claims.

Perliger’s paper notably lacks mention of the fact that a great many “racist/white supremacy” organizations are themselves either partially or even entirely staffed by law enforcement agents of government intelligence. Likewise, Perliger entirely conflates race-based movements (also likely infiltrated and controlled by government agencies) with what he labels the “Christian Fundamentalist” movement. This, as Madison Ruppert points out, is described with a complete lack of understanding (intentional or otherwise) as to what “fundamentalism” actually is.

Yet, the “anti-federalist” movement (itself a variety of movements mixed together to provide an easier category for Perliger and his readers), is the most interesting when evaluating the West Point paper. According to Perliger, this “movement” is centered around a belief in a “New World Order,” and the recognition of the “corrupted and tyrannical nature of the federal government and its apparent tendency to violate individuals’ civilian liberties and constitutional rights.”

In this regard, Perliger writes,

The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.

In further summarizing the “anti-federalist” viewpoint, Perliger writes,

The anti-federalist movement’s ideology is based on the idea that there is an urgent need to undermine the influence, legitimacy and practical sovereignty of the federal government and its proxy organizations. The groups comprising the movement suggest several rationales that seek to legitimize anti-federal sentiments. Some groups are driven by a strong conviction that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order,” (NWO) in which the United States will be embedded in the UN or another version of global government. The NWO will be advanced, they believe, via steady transition of powers from local to federal law-enforcement agencies, i.e., the transformation of local police and law-enforcement agencies into a federally controlled “National Police” agency that will in turn merge with a “Multi-National Peace Keeping Force.” The latter deployment on US soil will be justified via a domestic campaign implemented by interested parties that will emphasize American society’s deficiencies and US government incompetency. This will convince the American people that restoring stability and order inevitably demands the use of international forces. The last stage, according to most NWO narratives, involves the transformation of the United States government into an international/world government and the execution and oppression of those opposing this process.

Indeed, anyone even faintly aware of historical and current events would be hard-pressed to argue with the so-called “anti-federalists” in their analysis.

Regardless, in light of the recent push for citizen disarmament, the paper tellingly states,

Linda Thompson, the head of the Unorganized Militia of the United States details the consequence of this global coup: ”This is the coming of the New World Order. A one-world government, where, in order to put the new government in place, we must all be disarmed first. To do that, the government is deliberately creating schisms in our society, funding both the anti-abortion/pro-choice sides, the antigun/pro-gun issues…trying to provoke a riot that will allow martial law to be implemented and all weapons seized, while ‘dissidents’ are put safely away”. The fear of the materialization of the NWO makes most militias not merely hostile towards the federal government but also hostile towards international organizations, whether non-profitable NGOs, international corporations, or political institutions of the international community, such as the UN.

Perliger, of course, does not attempt to challenge any of Thompson's claims as they are presented in this short quotation nor does he attempt to debunk any of the claims made by the “anti-federalist” communities that he so concisely repeats in the statement above. While, admittedly, it is not a stated goal of the author’s study to defend his position and debunk those of his subjects, one would also be justified in concluding that Perliger does not attempt to defend his case simply because disproving the claims made by the “anti-federalist” activists as he presents them would impossible for him to do in a convincing manner.

Yet the purpose of the paper is not to provide legitimate information about these groups as much as it is to terrify the reader – West Point and other military trainees – into believing that anyone who rightly supposes that their government is overstepping its bounds, violating their rights, or moving forward in otherwise unconstitutional directions is a conspiracy-obsessed, right-wing, racist fanatic who is intent on killing military, police, and minorities.

Unfortunately for the author, however, a careful reading of his own argument causes it to fall apart at the seams.

After postulating numerous reasons for the alleged violence of “far-right” groups ranging from political, socio-economic, geographical, and operational possibilities, Perliger attempts to turn to the actual numbers.

At first, Perliger’s presentation of thousands of violent attacks per year (using 2010 statistics) is quite shocking since such attacks are not known to the general public and the mainstream media has not seized upon them at every available opportunity as one would expect. The actual level of violence in its own right, whether reported or not, would be concerning to say the very least.

These numbers would be an even more concerning situation if they demonstrated that such attacks were on the rise.

Unfortunately for the government argument, however, this is not the case as even Perliger has to admit when he says, “Hence, in periods during which many streams of terrorism have shown improvement in their operational capabilities and, as a result, an increase in their tendency to engage in mass casualty attacks, the violent American far right shows stagnation, at least in terms of its ability to enhance the harm it generates.”

For instance, while the term “right-wing violent attack” might conjure images of lynchings, executions, or mass terror attacks, the statistics, even those presented by Perliger, tend to show a different reality. Indeed, the type of “attack” referenced in Perliger’s study is entirely unclear in terms of just what would constitute a “right-wing violent attack.”

Indeed, when examining Perliger’s statistics, one can easily see that well over half of the “attacks” being described are actually proxy “attacks” (loosely defined term) against property, “foiled attacks” (which are wildly undefined, especially since the overwhelming majority of any foiled terrorist attack in the United States has been directed by the FBI), “heavy damage to property,” and “cross burnings.”

Likewise, with so many acts of property damage and racial symbols being later determined to have been directed by the “victims” themselves, one must also call these numbers into question since they are left unclear in the study.

Of those attacks designed to cause “mass casualties,” the Oklahoma City Bombing was no doubt included in the statistics, an obvious government-run false flag operation.

Yet, even among the 42% of “attacks” described as involving “specific human targets,” the incidents are not necessarily connected with any political, racial, or religious origin. As with any attempt at methods of divide and conquer, there is the very real possibility that any violent attack leveled against any individual of minority status or non-right-wing political ideology is thus considered to be a “specific human target” attack. Under such loosely defined rules of categorization, since the incidence of “specific human targets” were overwhelmingly one on one or (at most) two on one altercations, a simple shoving match between two individuals in which one could be remotely considered right wing, racist, or religious could then be delineated as a violent right-wing attack.

Since Perliger easily allows his own political bias to appear during the course of the paper and, since much of his political theory is based upon Israeli political scientist Ehud Sprinzak’s Iceberg model of the structure of political movements, it is apparent that Perliger’s own methodology is likely devised in a manner that would allow even the most distant and unrelated events seem directly related to the core of political ideology Perliger has set in his sites.

Such a concern is only compounded by the fact that one of Perliger’s main sources for his paper is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a notorious race-baiting organization that routinely accuses anyone who disagrees with the company line in regards to government policy as racist and potentially violent and dangerous. Not far behind, of course, is the citation of the Anti-Defamation League, an organization of similar race-based incredibility.

In the end, Perliger’s report is nothing more than just another cog in the wheel of a military-industrial complex on overdrive in its attempt to brainwash new military recruits into believing that a terrorist lurks behind every bush. More importantly, these new recruits are being trained that such terrorists are no longer shadowy Muslims hiding in caves in Afghanistan, but good ol’ boys, gun owners, and average American citizens that will eventually have to be dealt with.

Sign Entering Virginia

Buying Iodine In Oregon? Bring Your Papers!

Translation

Barbara H. Peterson
Farm Wars

If you want to buy Iodine in a feed store in Oregon for your animals, you had better run right over to your local car dealership and buy yourself a vehicle first. Yes, that’s right. If you don’t own a vehicle registered with the DMV, then you either have to have someone else present his/her vehicle registration papers to the proper authorities, or your iodine buying days are over.
I went to town with my neighbor and she drove.

Since my goats are getting ready to kid, I thought it would be a good idea to get some sort of iodine solution to treat the umbilical cords. No biggie, just a routine stop at the local Big R feed store. I looked around and decided on Triodine-7. According to the website, this is “for topical application on the skin to disinfect superficial wounds, cuts, abrasions, insect bites and minor bruises.” And it dries up the umbilical stump quickly. So, I put a bottle in my cart along with my goat minerals. Then I approached the cash register. And so it began…

The gal behind the register looked at me, and I looked at her and smiled. Then she pulled out a form and asked for my vehicle registration. PAPERS PLEASE!!! Huh? Why do you want my vehicle registration?

 She said – it’s for the iodine. You cannot buy this without providing a picture I.D. and your vehicle registration. I said I didn’t drive to town, and therefore, cannot provide my registration papers.

Then I got it….. the stink-eye. You know, that look that says I know you’re probably a felon since you won’t show me your papers… I stared right back, prepared to take this to the matt and most likely end up behind bars. Then my neighbor stepped in and provided her registration papers so that we could end the day without someone having to post bail.

Here is a copy of the form provided by the Oregon State Police that she had to fill out just so I could buy one lousy little 16 oz bottle of Triodine-7:

Notice the part that specifically demands a picture I.D. and vehicle registration papers for the transporting vehicle. No car, no iodine.
When I got home, I looked up the law. Read it and weep. It is not only unlawful to buy or sell, but even unlawful to possess unless you fit the description in section 2 of the following:

§ 475.976¹
Unlawful possession of iodine matrix

•  recording transfers
•  unlawful distribution of iodine matrix

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of an iodine matrix if the person knowingly possesses an iodine matrix.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A person who possesses an iodine matrix as a prescription drug, pursuant to a prescription issued by a licensed veterinarian or physician;
(b) A person who is actively engaged in the practice of animal husbandry of livestock as defined in ORS 609.125 (Definition of livestock);
(c) A person who possesses an iodine matrix in conjunction with experiments conducted in a chemistry or chemistry related laboratory maintained by a:
(A) Regularly established public or private secondary school;
(B) Public or private institution of higher education that is accredited by a regional or national accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education; or
(C) Manufacturing, government agency or research facility in the course of lawful business activities;
(d) A veterinarian, physician, pharmacist, retail distributor, wholesaler, manufacturer, warehouseman or common carrier or an agent of any of these persons who possesses an iodine matrix in the regular course of lawful business activities; or
(e) A person working in a general hospital who possesses an iodine matrix in the regular course of employment at the hospital.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (4) of this section, a person who sells or otherwise transfers an iodine matrix to another person shall make a record of each sale or transfer. The record must be made on a form provided by the Department of State Police, completed pursuant to instructions provided by the department and retained by the person for at least three years or sent to the department if directed to do so by the department. Failure to make and retain or send a record required under this subsection is a Class A misdemeanor.
(4) A licensed veterinarian is not required to make a record of a sale or transfer of an iodine matrix under subsection (3) of this section if the veterinarian makes a record of the sale or transfer under other applicable laws or rules regarding the prescribing and dispensing of regulated or controlled substances by veterinarians.
(5) A person commits the crime of unlawful distribution of an iodine matrix if the person knowingly sells or otherwise transfers an iodine matrix to a person not listed in subsection (2) of this section.
(6) Unlawful possession of an iodine matrix is a Class A misdemeanor.
(7) Unlawful distribution of an iodine matrix is a Class A misdemeanor. [2001 c.615 §8; 2005 c.706 §15]
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/475.976

Iodine is one of many substances defined by Oregon law as a “precurser” substance. In other words, someone, sometime, might make methamphetamine out of it. Maybe we should ban water or spoons too, since they can be used in the process of making drugs. Where does it end? This is pre-crime law. Even the bottle of Triodine-7 label states clearly:

 ”Complies with DEA Iodine Regulation 21 C.F.R. 310.2. No DEA registration required.” Yet, if anyone in Oregon is caught with a bottle of iodine and doesn’t fit into the proper mold as defined in Oregon pre-crime law, guess what? That person is a criminal.
Here is the definition of a “precursor substance:”

Chapter 448 Oregon Laws 2003 
AN ACT 
HB 2034 
Relating to precursor substances; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 475.940, 475.950, 475.973 and 475.978. 
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 
 475.940. As used in ORS 475.940 to 475.999:
(1) “Iodine matrix” means iodine at a concentration greater than [1.5] two percent by weight in  a matrix or solution.
(2) “Matrix” means something, as a substance, in which something else originates, develops, or is contained.
(3) “Precursor substance” means:
(a) Phenyl-2-propanone.
(b) Methylamine.
(c) D-lysergic acid.
(d) Ergotamine.
(e) Diethyl Malonate.
(f) Malonic acid.
(g) Ethyl Malonate.
(h) Barbituric acid.
(i) Piperidine.
(j) N-acetylanthranilic acid.
(k) Ethylamine.
(L) Pyrolidine.
(m) Phenylacetic acid.
(n) Anthranilic acid.
(o) Morpholine.
(p) Ephedrine.
(q) Pseudoephedrine.
(r) Norpseudoephedrine.
(s) Phenylpropanolamine.
(t) Benzyl cyanide.
(u) Ergonovine.
(v) 3,4-Methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone.
(w) Propionic anhydride.
(x) Insosafrole (Isosafrole).
(y) Safrole.
(z) Piperonal.
(aa) N-methylephedrine.
(bb) N-ethylephedrine.
(cc) N-methylpseudoephedrine.
(dd) N-ethylpseudoephedrine.
(ee) Hydriotic acid.
(gg) 1,4-butanediol.
(hh) Any salt, isomer or salt of an isomer of the chemicals listed in paragraphs (a) to (gg) of this subsection.
(ii) Iodine in its elemental form.
(jj) Iodine matrix.
(kk) Red phosphorus, white phosphorus, yellow phosphorus or hypophosphorus acid and its salts.
(LL) Anhydrous ammonia.
[(mm) Methyl sulfonyl methane (MSM).]
[(nn)] (mm) Any substance established as a precursor substance by rule under authority granted in ORS 475.945.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/03orlaws/sess0400.dir/0448ses.htm

So, whatever you do, don’t buy antihistamines, MSM and iodine on the same day or you just might end up in cuffs even if you do present your papers. And make sure to keep on checking in because it seems that just about anything can be declared a “precursor substance” and voila! It is illegal to possess.

Feeling safer now? I know I sure am…. In a pig’s eye! No vehicle? No iodine, or any other thing they want to declare a precurser substance for a possible crime to be committed sometime in the future. Or, how about forcing you to purchase a house? Can’t afford one? Too bad – no iodine for you!

Sheriffs Against Obamacie

The great usurper of the Constitution, President Obama, is seeking to obliterate the Second Amendment and subsequently, he is coming after your guns. Obama is not coming after your guns in one fell swoop, although he would like to.Inch by inch, Obama believes that gun confiscation is a cinch.

 He is employing the principle of incrementalism. Under this communist despot, Americans will see registration and prohibition today, followed by confiscation tomorrow.

Democide, defined as murder by government, in the 20th century, accounted for 262,000,000 deaths. Nearly everyone of these mass murders by government was preceded by gun control and gun confiscation. Logic, wisdom and historical precedent would indicate that Americans would be foolish to ever surrender any of the Second Amendment rights to the federal government.

I am one of a growing group of Americans who believes that what I have dubbed Obamacide (i.e. the continual takedown of the Constitution and replacing it with Marxist Communist ideals), will be followed by democide which will be perpetrated against the American people by the minions who represent and serve the bankers who have hijacked our government.

A Pro-American Message From An Unlikely Source

Former California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a man of very limited acting skills, recently returned to the big screen as Sheriff Ray Owens, a tough law man who leads a band of an inexperienced small town police officers who face the daunting task of stopping a ruthless drug cartel leader from reaching the US-Mexico border.

As an aside, some men gracefully age and understand the importance of choosing age appropriate activities, hobbies and vocations. Apparently, Schwarzenegger does not possess that kind of introspective awareness. This “grandpa on steroids” approach to reliving his days as an action hero, was very comedic, but only in a very tragic way. More to the point,

Schwarzenegger’s character portrays one of America’s last remaining heroes, the County Sheriff. You might be wondering about the name of Schwarzenegger’s newest action movie? Never mind, you would be better off saving your money and buying some more ammunition.

 The only saving grace of this very bad movie lies in the expressed belief that the County Sheriff is America’s last line of defense in a community and that the federal government, if not always corrupt, is always incompetent.

America’s Last Remaining Heroes

The County Sheriff is the indeed the last line of defense against a tyrannical government which is undeniably hell-bent on destroying the Second Amendment for very nefarious purposes. Here are some very poignant examples



In response to the national gun-control/confiscation debate, Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County in Kentucky stated in a recent press conference that his power as sheriff, charged with upholding the Constitution, constitutes his most important to the citizens of Jackson county and that Peyman is unconcerned with the hidden, and often illegal agendas of state and federal agents. Peyman further explained that

 “I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave. And it doesn’t matter what new laws Obama passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.”



Illinois Clark County Sheriff, Jerry Parsley, posted a message from the Clark County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page this past Thursday explaining his mission to protect the Constitution. “It’s a given to me; the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. The amendment is about a free state’s ability to defend itself from an oppressive government. When a government won’t or can’t defend its citizens, they have a God-given right to protect themselves. To me it’s simple.”

The Utah Sheriffs’ Association has written a strongly worded letter to President Obama on the issue of gun control. Part of the letter reads, “No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them.”

In Oregon’s Josephine County, Sheriff Gil Gilbertson said Wednesday that a lot of sheriffs are standing up and demanding the Constitution – especially the Second Amendment – be followed.



Frank Deming, the Johnson County Sheriff is sounding off against President Barack Obama’s new gun control proposals. Denning discussed the mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, but says he sees nothing in the proposed measures that could prevent similar incidents in the future. “Logic dictates to us that armed individuals; whether armed private individuals or hired security personnel, are the answer to prevent future tragedies in those places that we have inadvertently made free-fire zones with the totally useless ‘No Guns Allowed’ signs,” Deming continued.



In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole sent an open letter to residents saying he did not believe the federal government had the right to tell the states how to regulate firearms. He said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate which he felt violated constitutional rights, specifically the Second Amendment.

I  received a recent email from Sheriff Richard Mack, former Graham County, AZ. Sheriff, who successfully challenged the Brady Bill before the Supreme Court. Mack’s email detailed for me his efforts, as an Oathkeeper, to remind Sheriffs across the country to uphold the Second Amendment.

Even A Governor “Gets It”

In Mississippi, Governor Phil Bryant, urged the Legislature to make it illegal to enforce any executive order by the president that violates the Constitution.

“If someone kicks open my door and they’re entering my home, I’d like as many bullets as I could to protect my children, and if I only have three, then the ability for me to protect my family is greatly diminished,” Bryant said. “And what we’re doing now is saying, ‘We’re standing against the federal government taking away our civil liberties.’” At least one politician is not on the take.

Evil Never Takes a Holiday

MA. Representative, the Democidal David Linsky, has filed a bill which, among other things, forces gun owners to undergo mental health background checks, acquire liability insurance, pay an additional 25% tax on all forms of ammunition, and requires firearms categorized as “assault weapons” to be stored outside of their homes and only at government approved storage depots. In my estimation, this is only an intermediate step with the final destination being the nearly complete destruction of the Second Amendment followed by gun confiscation.



Of course this man shipped guns into Mexico in an attempt to undermine the Second Amendment under Operation Fast and Furious.



This woman allowed the murder of Ambassador Stevens by refusing the Ambassador’s request for additional protection following his gun running into Syria on behalf of the CIA in this Middle East version of Fast and Furious in which tens of thousands have already been murdered.



This man oversaw Operation Fast and Furious which resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry, 40,000 Mexicans last year and 300 Americans.  This man also oversaw the stand down orders which could have prevented Ambassador Stevens death/assassination. And this man wants to disarm you while he is responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands human beings.

Yesterday, I purchased a gun and some ammunition. I have drawn my line in the sand. I stand for the Constitution and in particular, the Second Amendment. As the President continues to commit Obamacide, I have decided that I will not obey. I will not follow Obama’s gun control policies as issued by 23 illegal and unconstitutional executive orders. I will not submit to ANY form of federal tyranny committed against the Constitution.

And in my role as a journalist, I refused to be silenced as I will continue to publicly decry the criminal communist takeover of this country by this creation of the modern-day version of the Weathermen Underground terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorne and their puppet-in-chief, Barak Hussein Obama.



If we submit to this unconstitutional and illegal authority, we will become vulnerable like never before in our nation’s history. I would encourage everyone to write today to their local sheriff and demand that he defend the Constitution and in particular, the Second Amendment against unwarranted federal government interference. I would encourage you to act as if your life depends on it, because it does.

Hemp Growing Was Once The Law In The US

HEMP IS RIGHT ON THE MONEY, highlighted a 1914 series $10 bill of a hemp harvest, and it is discussed in the video attached. The bill is printed on 100% hemp paper. 

The first Federal Reserve Bank notes were issued in 1914. This $10 bill bears the signature of Andrew Mellon, the Secretary of the Treasury under multiple presidential administrations. Mellon was also the head of several oil companies and banks. Mellon was the uncle of Harry Anslinger, the first leader of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1931-1961. Anslinger was the main cheerleader of the Reefer Madness misinformation campaign and the primary person responsible for marijuana prohibition.

Aaron Jackson, Guest Writer

Waking Times
Before you start growing your own hemp plants, it is worthwhile to read up on the history of hemp growing in the US. At one time it was legal. Not only was it legal, the law required the growing of it.

According to the book Healthy Oils, hemp is another word for the plant Cannabis sativa L. Marijuana comes from this same plant genus – as does cauliflower and broccoli. However, the strains used in consumer and industrial products contain only a negligible amount of the intoxicating substance delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.

 Thus industrial grade hemp is not marijuana. Yet, since the 1950’s the growing of hemp has been effectively prohibited.

But this has not always been the case. Going back to 1619 America’s first marijuana law was enacted at Jamestown Colony, VA. All farmers were ordered to grow Indian hemp seed. Mandatory cultivation laws were enacted in MA in 1631, in CT in 1632, and in the Chesapeake colonies in the 1700’s.

Cannabis hemp was even used as legal tender in most of the Americas from 1631 until the early 1800’s. The reason for making it legal tender was to encourage farmers to grow more. You could then pay your taxes with cannabis hemp throughout America for over 200 years. If you did not grow hemp during periods of shortages, you could be jailed.

In fact, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson used enslaved African labor to grow this crop on their plantations.

Hemp has been grown for over 12,000 years for textiles, fiber, and food. There are established hemp growers in China, Romania, Hungary, and France. It is also now grown in Australia, Canada, Britain and Germany where for decades there had been none. The US has an experimental crop being grown in Hawaii under a government license.

Hemp is beginning to make a comeback in the US. Fashion designers and mass producers use it. It is also added to personal care products such as soap, shampoo and skin care products. Hemp seed oil naturally replenishes skin moisture and helps with the skin‘s elasticity. The omega-6 fatty acids are said to be helpful for sufferers of eczema, and psoriasis and other dry skin conditions.

Hemp seed oil is also used for cooking and is extremely high in polyunsaturated content (at least 80%). Because it is a very good source of omega fatty acids, adding it to your diet helps to substantially improve the skin’s natural elasticity and appearance.

In England, I found it easy to find all sorts of hemp seed products on the supermarket shelves.
Now cars made in France are being made from flax, hemp and other natural fibers.

NOTE:  Check out:  http://www.marijuana-tourism-information.com

The US Proven Record Of Keeping Peace & Killing

This is an open letter to one of my friends who is pro-gun control... Well, that's not exactly true; he doesn’t just want gun control. He wants to make all guns completely illegal.

Dear Lenny (not his real name),

About gun control: I agree with you. We need to protect the children. I understand that the best entity to do that is undoubtedly the US government. They have a proven record of success that cannot be matched!

Perhaps you should tell everyone who is against gun control about how the U.S. government protected them when they killed about 1 million Native Americans (who, by the way, didn't have guns). Those Native Americans were savages and they had to die to make way for our God-given manifest destiny and us.

Also remind people not to forget the great protection the US government gave its own citizens when it waged a war against them and killed nearly 700,000 of them in a war to protect sanctity of the state between 1861 and 1865? A war that killed citizens that had voted in that government to protect them! 


Or how, as late as about 1890, the US government righteously executed over 150 American Indians (80% were women and children) in a legal gun seizure raid at Wounded Knee? 

 Or those evil Branch Davidians at Waco, TX in 1993, killing 76 men, women and children?

Don’t forget to mention the now rarely disputed view that FDR knew about and encouraged the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor – and didn't allow his commanders to know about it, so that 2400+ Americans died? FDR did that to save lives!

Sure, sometimes there are tough choices to make, right? But remind everyone that the US government are always the Good Guys, with God on our side. Everyone makes mistakes, but at least our government means well. 

Isn’t it wonderful living in the greatest country in the world?

Oh, and don’t forget to mention about how the U.S. government – which would never turn on its citizens – imprisoned about 112,000 peaceful Japanese Americans during WWII? And also imprisoned peaceful German Americans during both world wars (over 2,000 in World War I and over 11,000 in World War II.)

Or, don’t forget to mention shooting peaceful student protestors and killing them at Kent State in 1970! Sure, those things happened... But it was for those students' own protection!

9/11? What? There another 3000 died. But no one could possibly imagine that our benevolent leaders would intentionally allow the world's most powerful, most feared, air force to sit at base doing nothing at the time, right?

 Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.
Some nutcases will argue that US history is replete with the US government committing gross crimes against humanity (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) and a litany of atrocities against its own people. But these cases are all hearsay. What proof do they have?

Blowing away a few to several hundred troublesome Americans matters to no one except conspiracy nuts and terrorists, right? I mean, if they are troublesome, they can’t be "real Americans," anyway!)

We need to protect the children. We need to take guns out of the hands of the citizens and give it back to the government…. 

After all, history shows that the US government is our best protector. They've proven, without a doubt, again and again, that they will take care of us! 

Thanks to my friend, David Kramer.

Trust NOT Your Federalized Sheriff & How To Tell The Difference

"You look depressed."

"I was lamenting. I’ve lost my innocence."

"You lost that some time ago. If you've only just noticed, it can't have been very important to you."

Exchange between Thomas Cromwell – the Machiavellian Lord Chancellor of England – and Richard Rich, an ambitious functionary who had sold his soul in a buyer’s market, from A Man for All Seasons.
"I will not enforce an unconstitutional law against any citizen of Smith County," insisted Sheriff Larry Smith. 

The sheriff wants his constituents to believe that he would refuse to participate in a federally mandated gun grab, or permit one to be carried out by federal officials within his jurisdiction. Yet ten days before Smith offered that assurance, his office had taken part in an early-morning SWAT rampage throughout East Texas in which 73 warrants were served as part of the federal government’s patently unconstitutional war on drugs.
During a December 2011 campaign debate, Smith said that he wanted to "invest more resources" – that is, redirect wealth plundered from the productive – into a "Drug Task Force," and insisted that under his administration the Sheriff’s Office would embrace a "Task Force mentality" in dealing with law enforcement issues. 

The problem with the mindset Sheriff Smith was extoling should become obvious once it’s understood that the German term for "task force" is einsatzgruppe. By their actions many multi-jurisdictional task forces in contemporary America are increasingly faithful to their historic pedigree. 

Smith’s devotion to narcotics task forces might be the residue of his early law enforcement career, which included two years as a special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration – an agency that could be considered the mentally deficient stepchild of the CIA, which is the world’s largest narcotics syndicate. 

Twenty years ago, an ATF einsatzgruppe launched a murderous raid against an isolated religious group at Mt. Carmel outside Waco. The warrant they were enforcing was clotted with falsehoods. The investigation that produced it was haphazard. Its target, Vernon Howell -- aka David Koresh -- was suspected of trivial violations of federal firearms regulations, and had indicated his eagerness to cooperate with ATF investigators to clear the record. 

If an arrest were to be carried out – and one was neither necessary, nor justified – it could have been performed during one of Koresh’s frequent solitary jogging expeditions, or one of his routine visits to town. Instead, the ATF – seeking a dramatic, high-profile enforcement action to generate headlines for the scandal-plagued agency – staged a paramilitary assault on the religious sanctuary.

 They did so even though the raiders had lost the element of surprise, and when they arrived at Mt. Carmel they opened fire on the building despite the fact that an unarmed Koresh had confronted the stormtroopers with his hands up, pleading for them not to shoot.

Four ATF agents were killed during that Sunday morning raid. Their deaths were utterly unnecessary, and entirely well-deserved: They were attempting to murder innocent people, and the would-be victims acted within their rights in using deadly force to defend their homes against that assault. The criminal clique that had sent the ATF to attack the Davidians sent a larger contingent to lay siege to their residence, and eventually arranged for the holocaust that annihilated 76 people, including seventeen small children.

Like most gun owners in Eastern Texas, Smith can remember where he was the morning of April 19, 1993, when the Mt. Carmel refuge went up in flames. He was on the scene as an agent of the ATF, which he had joined in 1989. Smith believes that the initial ATF raid on the Davidians was justified, and that the entire operation was at least a partial success. It’s doubtful that his assessment is shared by many gun owners in his jurisdiction.

Larry Smith is among dozens of sheriffs who have gone on record in opposition to the Obama administration’s impending firearms restrictions. All of them have promised to intervene to protect their counties from federal tyranny. And all of them are active collaborators in the same.

Kieran Donahue was sworn in as the new Sheriff of Canyon County, Idaho on January 14. Three days later he joined the ranks of "refusenik sheriffs" by promising not to implement any federal gun policy at odds with his responsibility to "uphold the Constitution."

Unfortunately, that resolute statement of principled defiance was fatally undermined when Donahue – in the same press conference -- expressed his willingness to continue his office’s collaboration in the federal "war on drugs" and displayed his indecent eagerness to accept new federal subsidies to deploy deputies to guard public schools as soon as the funds are available.

Wendy Olson, the official assigned by the regime to act as the federal regime’s legal sub-commissarina for Idaho, has said that her office will fully comply with new federal firearms mandates. She pointedly noted that the Canyon County Sheriff’s Office – like most others in the country – has officers who are cross-deputized to serve on federal einsatzgruppen. During last year’s campaign the future sheriff proudly boasted of his work as an "undercover officer" with the FBI-supervised METRO Violent Crime and Gang Task Force.

"In these changing and difficult economic times it is a great benefit to have all law enforcement agencies working together in order to share costs and resources," insisted Donahue. Those words will almost certainly come back to haunt Canyon County gun owners when – not "if" – the Feds make it clear that they are willing to "share resources" only with sheriff’s offices who are on board with the gun grab.

Donahue insisted on playing coy about the fact that he’s for sale. Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims was shameless. She told the local ABC affiliate that while she will not enforce unconstitutional gun laws, she also "backs the added funding for local law enforcement, especially in schools." 

Her office has a huge budget, a small but significant portion of which is derived from proceeds seized through a federally supervised "asset forfeiture" program. 

In 2009, Mims was the "local" face that was pasted onto the Obama administration’s "Operation Save Our Sierra" marijuana crack-down, which was personally supervised by federal Drug War Commissar Gil Kerlikowske. This campaign involved 300 personnel from local, state, and federal agencies – including military pilots that flew Black Hawk helicopters over targeted areas. The manpower and hardware were deployed in a mission best described as militarized horticulture. It’s quite easy to see how the personnel and assets used against "illegal" plants could be employed to confiscate "illegal" firearms in the future. 


A few years ago, when Mims and her department faced a $4 million budget deficit, the Fresno County commission had to scrounge up $10.6 million in plundered funds to prevent layoffs in the Sheriff’s Office. That money most likely won’t be available next time Sheriff Mims wants to avoid handing pink slips to her deputies. It’s quite easy to imagine a scenario in which her federal supervisors will introduce her to a new variety of alchemy -- converting confiscated "illegal" firearms into federal subsidies. 

Four sheriffs in Oregon have announced their opposition to the renewed campaign to disarm citizens. Among them is Sheriff Brian Wolfe of Malheur County (who, in the interests of full disclosure, is a childhood friend). In a letter to Vice President Biden, Sheriff Wolfe declared: "I believe that the Constitution stands above all laws and executive orders of this Country. I want to be very clear that no one employed on our team at the Malheur County Sheriff’s Office will enforce or support any laws or executive orders that are not consistent with the Constitution of this great land." 

If only those inspiring words were consonant with Sheriff Wolfe’s actions. Like every other sheriff in the country, Brian Wolfe violates the Constitution on a routine basis. 

Last August, the Malheur County Sheriff’s Department casually announced that it had found several small marijuana gardens during a two-week aerial surveillance operation conducted with the help of the National Guard.

Acting as the department’s official stenographer, the Argus Observer newspaper reported that Sheriff Brian Wolfe will now "contact property owners and acquire search warrants if needed." Warrants would not be necessary, Wolfe observed, if the property owners consented to the searches. The Sheriff pointed out that the plants may be part of legal medicinal marijuana operations, or could have been planted without the owner’s knowledge or consent.

At this point an actual journalist would have asked Wolfe why his office was conducting warrantless aerial searches of private property without probable cause. After all, the Sheriff has admitted that none of the property owners was a criminal suspect.

The Malheur County Sheriff’s Department spends part of each summer arresting marijuana plants – that is, dispatching its SWAT team to barren locations in rural Oregon to clear out patches of marijuana.
Sheriff Wolfe insists this is necessary to "protect the public," which is more acutely threatened by the unconstitutional, paramilitary operations of his own department.

 Wolfe’s department spends a great deal of time seizing contraband and prosecuting people who possess it. That experience will prove quite useful when – once again, not "if" – the Feds decide to treat legally owned firearms as illicit contraband. 

There isn’t a single county sheriff’s office in the country that hasn’t compromised itself by accepting federal funds, and collaborating in unconstitutional federal enforcement operations. They’ve long since lost their innocence, but are pretending that they’ve just noticed that fact.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Feds to prohibit the consumption of narcotics or any other substance. Indeed, last time the Feds undertook a campaign of national prohibition, they had to change the Constitution in order to do so. Unless they’re investigating charges of treason or counterfeiting, sheriffs should not collaborate with the Feds – and in such circumstances the Feds themselves should be treated as the primary suspects.

If you take the nickel, you take the noose. If a sheriff’s office receives so much as a farthing of federal funding, it will be subject to federal mandates. That principle was underscored about seven years ago in the case of Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old video blogger imprisoned for refusing to turn over a portion of footage he shot of tumultuous street protests during the G-8 summit in San Francisco.
The Feds claim that Wolf, who spent two-thirds of a year in prison on civil contempt charges, possessed footage of a police car being set on fire. Wolf maintained that he didn’t have the material the Feds were after, and that under California's very liberal journalist shield law, he wasn’t required to turn over his confidential, unpublished material. A Federal District Court Judge ignored Wolf's argument and incarcerated him in a detention center in Dublin, California for contempt.

The alleged assault on a San Francisco police car would be a municipal matter, and the California shield law is obviously a question of state law. Why was this dealt with in a federal court?

As Time magazine pointed out: "The Feds say they have jurisdiction over the case because the police car is partly U.S. government property since the SFPD receives federal anti-terrorism money."

Note well that the Feds didn’t claim that the regime paid for the specific cars that were reportedly destroyed, only that the police department had been subsumed into the federal law enforcement apparatus because it had received some quantity of Homeland Security funding.

What this means, in principle, is that any police agency that receives a dime of federal Homeland Security money is effectively an appendage of the Department of Homeland Security (or, to use the appropriate German expression, the Heimatsicherheitsdienst).

This is obviously true of municipal police departments, which are innately illegitimate paramilitary bodies in no way accountable to the public they supposedly serve. We’re invited to believe that local elected sheriffs are different – at least where the incipient gun grab is concerned. 

The ranks of the refuseniks will continue to expand, and they will feed gun owners a steady diet of bold talk about their willingness to interpose on behalf of their constituents if the Feds come for their guns. Some of them may be sincerely committed to do so. But until they stop actively collaborating in existing federal abuses, why should we assume they would be willing to take the side of the public against the Feds when the Regime decides to come for our guns?

By Way of Illustration... 

... we see the following act of felonious assault and kidnapping by Citrus County, Florida Deputy Sheriff Andy Cox, who threatens to murder innocent, law-abiding gun owner. It took less than two seconds for this this cretinous, foul-mouthed tax-feeder to drop the pose of superficial geniality. His first instinct, on learning that this harmless man was armed, was to threaten to murder him, because he had been indoctrinated in the belief that Mundanes simply cannot be permitted to bear arms.

When assessing the credibility of "constitutional sheriffs" as protectors of the right to bear arms, bear in mind that sheriffs are politicians and administrators; the patrol officers in their departments are people like Andy Cox.